FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 31889/06 Nikolay Iosifovich GAYDUCHENKO against Ukraine and 7 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 December 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Mark Villiger , President, Karel Jungwiert , André Potocki , judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on various dates ,

Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine ( no. 40450/04 , ECHR 2009 ‑ ... (extracts) ) ,

Having regard to the unilateral declaration s submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application s out of the list of cases ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows :

THE FACTS

The applicant s are Ukrainian nationals whose details are specified in the table below. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms Valeria Lutkovska and Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy , of the Ministry of Justice.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On the dates set out in the table below t he domestic courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to pay t he m various pecuniary amounts or take certain actions . The judgments in the applicants ’ favour became final but the authorities delayed their enforcement .

COMPLAINTS

The applicant s complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in their favour. Some of them also raised other complaints.

THE LAW

1. The Court considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.

2. Following the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov pilot judgment cited above , on various dates (see the table below) the Government submitted several unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issues raised by the applicants. In these declarations the Government acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants ’ favour, expressed their readiness to enforce the judgments which have not been enforced yet and offered the applicants various compensation sums (for the sums, see the table below ).

The Government invite d the Court to strike the applic ations out of the list of cases and suggested t hat the declarations might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifyi ng the striking out of the case under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

The declarations also provided that t he compensation sums were to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement . They w ould be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undert ook to pay simple interest on them from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. This payment w ould constitute the final resolution of the cases.

Subsequently the Government supplemented the declarations with the provision that the compensation sums would be free of any taxes that might be chargeable.

The applicants either disagreed with the declarations on various grounds and requested the Court to pursue the examination of their cases or did not provide any comments.

The Court reiterates that it may at any stage of the proceedings strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusions specified under Article 37 § 1 (a) - (c) of th e Convention . In particular, under A rticle 37 § 1 (c) the Court may s trike a case out of its list if for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

Article 37 § 1 in fine states:

“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and th e protocols thereto so requires ” .

The Court also reiterates that in certain circumstances it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration made by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court recalls that in the aforementioned pilot judgment it ordered Ukraine to grant redress to the applicants whose applications were communicated to the Government before the delivery of the judgment or would be communicated further to the judgment and concerned complaints about the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions for which the State was responsible (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine , cited above , § 99 and point 6 of the operative part ). Having examined the terms of the Government ’ s declaration s , the Court understands them as intending to give the applicant s the redress in accordance with the pilot judgment .

The Court is satisfied that the Government explicitly acknowledge the excessive duration of the enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants ’ favour and undertake to enforce the judgments which have not been enforced yet. It also notes that the compensation sums offered by the Government are comparable with Court awards in similar cases , taking account , inter alia , of the specific delay in each particular case .

The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the relevant parts of the application s . It is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the P rotocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of these parts of the application s . Accordingly, they should be struck out of the list.

3. Having carefully examined the applicants ’ remaining complaints in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that these parts of the applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration s in respect of the applicants ’ complaints about the delayed enforcement of the domestic judgments in their favour ;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in so far as they relate to the above complaints in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger Deputy Registrar President

No.

Application number,

applicant ’ s name

and date of birth

Date of introduction

Domestic judgments about the delayed enforcement of which the applicants complain

(date a nd the court ’ s name)

Date of the unilateral declaration /

sum offered by the G overnment

(in euros )

1.

31889/06

GAYDUCHENKO ,

Nikolay Yosifovich , 1953

28 July 2006

14 January 2004,

Vinnytsya Garrison Military Court

13 July 2011 /

1,335

2.

44609/06

CHERNIGA ,

1). Yuriy Mykhaylovych , 1973,

2). Ganna Valeriyivna , 1977

22 September 2006

13 December 2005,

Debaltsev e Court

(as amended on 23 March 2006)

14 July 2011 /

810 ( for each)

3.

13917/07

SIMOLCHUK ,

Gennadiy Antonovych , 1965

10 April 2007

26 October 2004 ,

Bogunskyy District Court of Zhytomyr

15 July 2011 /

1,080

4.

44846/07

DAVYDOVA ,

Yelena Ivanovna , 1960

9 September 2007

1 March 2005,

Krasnyy Luch Court

4 May 2011 /

1,020

5.

44911/07

CHEREVKO ,

Tatyana Aleksandrovna , 1973

9 September 2007

27 August 2003,

Krasnyy Luch Court

4 May 2011 /

1,365

6.

47846/07

PINDAK ,

Aleksandra Ivanovna , 1947

22 October 2007

26 May 2004,

Nova Kakhovka Court

12 May 2011 /

585

7.

49576/07

KIRECHKO ,

Klavdiya Nikolayevna , 1928

3 November 2007

5 December 2001 and 9 June 2006,

Krasnyy Luch Court

12 July 2011 /

1,725

8.

49600/07

CHUKARIN ,

Ivan Pavlovich , 1929

3 November 2007

16 April 2003,

Krasnyy Luch Court

12 July 2011 /

1,455

Table